In my post titled “The battle we can’t afford to lose“, I included a study done by the American Medical Students Association (AMSA) on the viability of a single-payer healthcare system. Here’s the ’study’ that AMSA did for the Greater Minnesota Health Care Coalition:

Although there are some advantages and some disadvantages to each system, universal health care confers the greatest number of advantages. They include:

• Every individual would receive necessary medical coverage, regardless of age, health, employment, or socio-economic status.
• Health care spending would decline because centralized billing procedures would reduce administrative overhead. Consequently, a larger percentage of the cost of health care would actually be spent on patient treatment.
• Increased access to preventive care and the ability of government to purchase prescription medications in bulk would also help drive down health care costs. However, the corresponding drop in revenue for pharmaceutical companies could lead to a reduction in overall research and development, slowing down technological advancement.
• Patients can choose their physician and physicians can choose the most appropriate treatment for their patients.
• There would be a removal of profit-motive in health care. The driving force behind the health industry would be patient care and not profit maximization.

At the time, I ridiculed the study for saying that “the corresponding drop in revenue for pharmaceutical companies could lead to a reduction in overall research and development” and for saying “The driving force behind the health industry would be patient care.” What they’ve just said is that the single-payer system would all but eliminate R & D spending and that they’d dramatically restrict profits for healthcare providers.

As alarming as that study is, AMSA is tied into something far more sinister and widespread than just single-payer. When I visited AMSA’s website, I found a link to an article about an upcoming event being held in Brooklyn, NY. Here’s the opening paragraph of that article:

On Feb. 23, from 2 to 4 p.m., the Weaving the Fabric of Diversity Committee of First Unitarian Church of Brooklyn will present “Crisis in Health Care,” a forum open to the community. Health care is one of the hotly debated topics in the presidential race this year. At this forum, experts in the field will explain how health care is an ever-worsening crisis in New York and America, and lead a discussion of proposed solutions.

One of the panelists at this forum is Nisha Agarwal. Here’s what the article says about Ms. Agarwal’s area of expertise:

Nisha Agarwal is a staff attorney and Skadden Fellow at the New York Lawyers for the Public Interest (NYLPI), a non-profit civil rights law firm that specializes in access to health care, environmental justice and disability rights. She will focus on improving access to health services for patients whose English is limited and who require interpreter services.

She will also address the impact of hospital closures and mergers and how this has added to the disparity of health care available to New York City’s poor and minority residents.

This article essentially says that Ms. Agarwal will speak about improving access to healthcare to illegal immigrants. Simply put, that article says that AMSA thinks illegal immigrants should have access to taxpayer-subsidized healthcare. It isn’t a stretch to think that GMHCC also shares that opinion.

Here’s something else that AMSA believes:

The most visible victims of America’s decision to treat health care as a privilege are the 45 million Americans who lack insurance. In contrast to prevailing stereotypes, 80% of the uninsured are hardworking Americans who are employed or come from working families. However, they are unable to obtain insurance through their work either because their employer does not offer it, their employer does offer it but the employer share of the premium is too expensive, or they are not eligible for health insurance (e.g. they are part-time or have not worked long enough at the job).

That’s from a page titled “The Case for Universal Health Care.” It’s apparent that AMSA thinks like John Marty that “healthcare should be thought of as a community need“, not as a product that people should buy. I strongly recommend that everyone read the entire AMSA report. It’s as informative as it is scary.

Based on the information contained in this post, AMSA and their allies have a simple agenda:

They want to implement a system that gives Mexicans more incentive to illegally enter the United States. They also will have to increase taxes to pay for the disastrous single-payer healthcare system currently employed by our neighbors to the north.

Technorati Tags: AMSA, Universal Health Care, Single-Payer, GMHCC, Election 2008

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

1. You’ve got to love a group that believes government is inherently good at paying bills. Tell that to Social Security recipients in twenty years.

   Comment by NeoconNews.com — February 5, 2008 @ 7:01 am

2. See what happen when the taxpayer GIVES some dumb bitch a law degree….

   Comment by Mitch the Bitch — February 5, 2008 @ 10:45 am

3. When the pollsters first missed the mark in Iowa, the social media research company I work for decided to see if the blogosphere was as wrong as the traditional media. Using a more primitive version of our current methodology, we were pleasantly surprised to see that a measurement of blog sentiment and activity would have correctly (if narrowly) predicted an Obama win. Our theory as to why this is: people so engaged in the political process that they publicly blog about their favorite candidates could fairly represent those who are engaged enough to vote in the primaries and caucuses at all. We followed 5 states for Super Tuesday and made overall and specific predictions, which can be found here, if you’re interested:

   http://blog.collectiveintellect.com/2008/02/05/super-tuesday-blogosphere-predicts-mccain-obama-as-winners/

   Comment by Kevin — February 5, 2008 @ 1:45 pm

4. I am amazed that anybody can look at the experience in Tennessee and Massachusetts and conclude that single-payer systems are a good idea.

   Comment by Bob Smith — February 5, 2008 @ 1:49 pm

5. There’s a news item going around in which Stephanopoulos asks Hillary if she’d consider garnishing wages for people who didn’t agree to sign up. She did not give a direct answer.
   But she did say:

   SEN. CLINTON: George, we will have an enforcement mechanism.

   Comment by ZZMike — February 5, 2008 @ 1:59 pm

6. And OUR enforcment system is called a CIVIL WAR!

   Comment by Mitch the Bitch — February 5, 2008 @ 3:46 pm

7. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security

   Comment by Mitch the Bitch — February 5, 2008 @ 3:49 pm

8. How is single-payer health care doing in San Francisco?

   Comment by Michael Ejercito — February 8, 2008 @ 9:52 am